A worker who dies on the job because of hazardous working conditions isn't an exploited worker, either, because once he's dead he's not a worker. Added bonus, for this reason as well, it will be permanently impossible to exploit him.
Yup, looks like you've solved the problem, all right.
A person who ACCEPTS “bad” working conditions is not exploited. If the person is unable to REJECT their working conditions (usually by leaving their employment), they are a slave.
“slave” and “worker” are not the same word and have different meanings. Slaves can be exploited, that is part and parcel of the term “slave”. Workers requires acceptance of the work conditions. A worker that does not accept their work conditions or compensation leaves that situation and is then, no longer a worker. A person who CAN NOT leave their conditions is a slave.
Confusing the two terms is a common tactic of the left. In their Socialist/Marxist/Communist diplopia world view, people who accept less than optimal conditions are being exploited - when often that is not the truth. The truth is that the worker has agreed and accepted the work conditions as they meet the person’s needs. For example, Walmart is often used as the measure of exploited workers by the left. Yet anyone of those workers are free to leave the employment of Walmart and seek other positions.
That is not exploitation. That is the market condition and the supply and demand of labor skills coming into play.
You will never be paid more than it costs to replace your skills and value that you bring to the company.
You will never be paid less than what you are willing to work for.